Sortition as a sustainable protection against oligarchy

Talk by Etienne Chouard

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KsnNpcJtwoo

Main ideas:
1. The core of democracy is political equality
2. Elections [Eklogocracy] are anti-democratic
a. Not designed to be democratic, and no such claims made by its designers
b. History shows that Eklogocracy puts the rich in power
c. The powerful support elections - cannot be a threat to them
d. It is a paradox that the entire political spectrum supports elections
e. Based on a myth - being able to choose the good
f. Rule by the worst - “good people don't care about governing”
g. Elections are appropriate for small scale - depend on knowing people and being able to
follow what they do, in large systems, the voters do not know the candidates and do not
know what they do
3. Calling eklogocracy “democracy” makes it difficult to remove this oligarchical form of
government
4. Athenian democracy:
a. Randomly drawn officials do not make decisions - the Assembly does
b. Athenian system assumes that power corrupts over time
c. Therefore, the Athenian system is based on amateurism and rotation of duties (6 - 12
month terms)
d. These are impossible in eklogocracy - re-election is inevitable
e. Everyone had the right to speak in the Assembly
f. Encouraged citizen activism
5. Various devices were used by the Athenians to control the allotted officials
a. Officials carry out routine tasks that cannot be done by the Assembly
b. Drawn officials were honored when virtuous, punished when corrupt
c. Dokimasia, Ostracism - removing those who are perceived to be a threat
d. Revocability, accountability - corrupt officials can be removed from power, punished
6. Eklogocracy allows translation of economic power into political power by controlling media.
Sortition decouples economic power from political power.
7. Sortition suitable for large scale - a pyramidal federated structure
8. Single issue citizen juries convened by the drawn officials become, with work, more competent
than any elected official could be.
9. Modern democracy should include citizen jury control of mass media.
10. Support for the Athenian system of democratic institutions can be separated from support for
other parts of the Athenian system: slavery, colonialism, male-chauvinism.
Transcription/Summary

0:00:20
The cause of our political impotence is that what we call democracy is actually the exact opposite.

The mechanism which lies at the heart of our institutions is aristocratic and it is called elections.

Elections means choosing, and choosing the best, i.e., aristocracy, and thousands of years of history have
shown that aristocracy always transforms into an oligarchy, i.e., power of a few.

The few are ruling but not because they are particularly evil or clever – the root cause is not the vice of
those who are ruling – it is the institutions that are the problem. The preferred process endorsed by
everyone – left parties, corporate banks. This is a paradox – people with nothing in common, totally
different interests, defend elections - that is suspicious.

The banks do not fear elections, they fund it and the elected serve their interests.

"Democracies” are not – cannot – be democracies because of elections.

0:02:50
Calling the current regime “democracy” means that the term is no longer available. One cannot designate
the enemy since the problematic regime carries the name of the one which is the solution.

Not a conspiracy. Those who designed the current regime at the end of the 18th century didn't call it
“democracy”. They new what they democracy means, they new the Athenian world, but they did not want
it. They were elitists. The thought people were not capable of managing their own affairs. They called the
system they designed “representative government” - not democracy. “Democracy” was a pejorative. By a
trick of history, that same regime came to be called “democracy” at the beginning of the 19th century by
Tocqueville and other writers.

0:05:19
There is a point in common between democracy and RG which is equality. That was the core objective of
the Athenian democracy – true political equality. In RG equality is formal. It is not real. It is based on
auxiliary details, not essentials. By invoking the common point, policy makers renamed the regime
“democracy” and they were quickly followed by everybody else. This became a tool for keeping the
regime in power.

0:06:12
Elected people are notables – they do not come from the working class. Not a conspiracy - but it was
instituted because it serves the interests of those in power. Tocqueville: “I am not afraid of universal
suffrage: the people will vote as they are told to.” It was clear that the poor people would never have
power through elections.

0:08:30
Athenian democracy: The core is real political equality, not economic or social equality. Collective
decision making in the assembly, one person, one vote. No representatives.

Athenians noticed that power corrupts – it takes time, but in the end nobody resists. Even the most
virtuous become corrupt. They begin to follow their personal interest instead of the pursuing the public
interest. These are facts we can still see today: wealth, privilege change people – even we are good at the
start we're progressively getting worse. Therefore, the Athenians defined the sub-goals: political
amateurism and rotation of duties. Powers are rotated so they don't have time to corrupt.
If we allow political cartels to grow we won't reach political equality. Short (6 months to a year)
non-renewable mandates are not compatible with elections: you'll never get enough candidates to fill short
and non-renewable mandate positions. When you elect someone the mechanism which led you to elect
this person will also lead you to reelect them. Elections thus entail the stability of the political
establishment. Elections create professionalism: the same people will always have power.

Athenians chose sortition because it creates amateurism. To apply rotation (short and non-renewable
mandates), sortition is necessary. It is impossible to replace sortition by election and keep the rest.
Sortition allows, by always picking different people randomly, rotation of duties and amateurism.

As a complementary institution, Athenians had the right to speak as a core objective.

0:14:15
Athenians knew they were liars, they knew they were not always honest. Our system will make each
citizen a potential sentinel. Citizens who want to speak, denounce, can denounce. Athenians said: “we are
going to protect dissident views, by implementing isegoria, that they preferred to isonomia”. Everyone in
an assembly may speak about anything and at any time. They wouldn't do it all the time, of course. When
someone spoke, people would listen to him/her, and was blamed for not expressing himself/herself
properly, for talking nonsense, rules were strict. It was very important that everyone could speak. The
assembly wasn't a mess: there were magistrates (that's how the drawn representatives were called, their
task partly consisted in keeping the assembly disciplined, thus in verifying that everything was in good
order). But the fact that each citizen who wanted to protest, who had something to say, was allowed to say
it without being killed is absolutely essential to keep democracy sound and clean by denouncing
oligarchical deviations. (Our institutions should protect whistleblowers.)

Isegoria made citizens active. When institutions act as if your words/opinions have no influence people
are reluctant to try hard. Today's institutions make citizens passive. Switzerland more democratic: each
citizen may trigger, with a few co-signatories, a referendum of his/her own. It makes Swiss citizens
active. In human history, the city of Athens is the biggest political activity we've ever had. Active citizens
feed/foster amateurism and make it possible and amateurism makes them active be it means everyone had
a chance to be drawn.
Sortition makes plausible the possibility that I may some day be the president of Athens. The president of
Athens was drawn every day. One of 4 citizens could say: “I was once president of Athens.” And no one
could say: “I was president twice”, because the mandate was not renewable. When you know that one day
you may be the spokesman for the group, it deeply changes your relationship with politics. Good
institutions will make good citizens. Good institutions are educational, they are a civic school.

0:21:44
Athenians were afraid of sortition, like us, same fear – they would think exactly like you today. They
were afraid of drawing idiots. So, first of all, they would not give the power to the drawee. The drawee
would not decide. The assembly would decide. Do not imagine that elections are replaced by sortition,
and that the power is left to representatives. The philosophy of institutions must change. We will see how
it can work and continue to work with a high number of people. But you'll see that with the federation,
with the small scale democracy and the upward pyramid-shaped federation with controls of the power as
each stage, this is totally conceivable.

0:23:07
Sortition mechanically and literally entails with marginal exceptions a decoupling of political and
economic power (Hansen, Athenian Democracy in the Age of Demosthenes; Manin, Principles of
Representative Government). Non-citizens (metics) were sometime very rich but had no political power.
Their economic power was guaranteed. They prospered despite having no political power.

Athens was colonialist, declared wars, went on expeditions, like all the people at that time. I am not
saying we should live like the Athenians. I'm only saying that compared to other cities of the time it was a
remarkably stable and prosperous and with an intense political activity. And, I think the germ is
transposable today (Castoriadis).

0:26:40
In a democracy poor people always rule. In a RG the wealthy rule. That makes a huge difference! I am
not talking about the sacred cow: “the universal suffrage as historical conquest of the working class”.
Under elections the poor never rule with marginal exceptions. Even when we elect people who will
supposedly defend the interests of the poor the opposite happens. (Blum's finance minister promised not
to raise wages before taking on his job. Mitterrand serves as another example of a “socialist” party
candidate that served the rich.)

0:29:53
The alternative I offer – sortition – is what makes my message unique. It is not a change that will happen
quickly. For now, the goal is to disseminate the idea.

0:30:45
People are concerned that sortition would result in selecting people they do not like. The Athenians had
the same concern. There were people they absolutely did not want to have selected. So had additional
institutions to correct sortition. The mandate is highly controlled before, during and after the term. The
drawee was afraid – unlike the elected. The drawees had a sense of responsibility, a duty. They didn't
come to take advantage while being unpunished, irresponsible.

Volunteering and risk of punishment: Opt-in vs. opt-out. Being a candidate is different from being
designated and accepting for the common good. Athenians would be rewarded for service with
honors/distinctions. The material reward was very modest. Being motivated only by money is insane. Lots
of people are content with their relationships with others, the peaceful and grateful relationship for the
other person's efforts. Because you know that you may be punished, you participate only if you have a
real project, if you feel that you must do it for the community. People would not be punished for making
mistakes – it was recognized they were amateurs.

Dokimasia: a preliminary test - not a competency test, for everyone was assumed to be competent.
Eliminating the insane or those who didn't take good care of their parents. We could set the test to
eliminate what scares us.

0:40:10
Ostracism: a vote to remove from politics people that were considered dangerous. Serves as
none-of-the-above vote. Today blank votes are considered the same as invalid votes. This rule was
invented by elected officials. We let the elected write rules that serve their interests. It is our fault – we let
them do it. The elected would not write rules which have blank votes counted separately from the invalid
ones, in which there are short and non-renewable mandates and in which at least one chamber of two is
drawn. They do not speak of citizens' juries. Members of parties should not write the rules of power.
Solon, after writing the Athenian constitution, left the city for 10 years.

0:44:40
Mandates revocable. We assume that virtue is not natural, not spontaneous, not innate. Controls are
implemented everywhere. RG assume those elected are virtuous simply because they were elected.

0:45:34
This system is much more solid for big structures, big sizes. Elections should be used for small sizes and
sortition would work better in a large scale system.

0:46:07
Accountability: having to report as the end of the mandate. The report was made to another drawn body.
Those institution would control a villain selected through sortition. Esangelia: publicly accuse people for
harming democracy. We can design the system so it best serves the public good. Maybe controls should
be limited so there aren't too many, to avoid paralyzing people. Graphe para nomon: the assembly could
change their mind by saying: “we made a mistake, let's correct it”. The Athenians built a body capable of
correcting itself, like a human being, in real time not every few years. It should be tested!

0:49:07
Objections and refutations:
1. Objection: Villains or idiots are going to rule! Not so: the drawees do not rule. In a democracy
representatives do not exert power, the assembly does. The representatives help us – they do what the
assembly cannot do: they prepare the agenda, they present the agenda, they check that the assembly is in
order, they implement decisions, they take care of accountability and finally punishments. They are not
our masters. With elections, we choose our masters. With sortition we say: “we do not need masters”. It is
totally different: it's not only a procedure to change; a democracy is different from what we know. What
we know today consists in designating masters who call themselves our representatives to better mislead
us.

The second answer is “there are lots of institutions to filter them”.

With elections, the worst govern because “good people don't care about governing” (Alain, Propo sur les
pouvoirs) the good will not present themselves as candidates.

2. The second objection you'll meet if you do as I suggest and try spreading the idea of sortition: “you are
applying a regime which would work at a small scale, but today, at a large scale, it is not possible to apply
it.” Not so: Elections depend on knowing people. The fact that we elect people means that we know them.
Otherwise, how can you elect – that is choose – if you don't know them?

Furthermore: since elections are supposed to be the only counter-power, since the only punishment when
they make mistakes is to not be reelected, it implies that we know what they did while they were elected.
Do you know the people you elected as the European level? Not at all. You know very little. You saw
them for 30 seconds on TV. And when they are in Europe, there, you can't see anything, you don't have
any idea about what they do!

So, elections are not adapted to large scales at all. They are adapted to small scales: the town. You know
your mayor, you can see him/her every day, you can call him/her, he/she knows you.

And since elections unrealistically assume that people are virtuous, that elected representatives would
become gods, able to decide, master every subject, that they are experts, there are no controls, because
elected representatives supposedly represent the nation. That's why we trust them, so there's no control.
But it totally contradicts large scales. A big organization needs lots of controls. Needs to assume that
people are not naturally good, and that controls are necessary everywhere.

0:56:11
3. Objection: “but with your system the opinions are never going to be the same, the one in charge will
never be the same – you draw a new person every day, opinions will change every day. How will you be
able to implement a long term policy? Have some kind of a vision for the future?”

First of all, why not? All living bodies are not straightforward. The assembly will make mistakes and
learn from them, and change policy. More importantly, drawees are not the ones who decides. The
assembly does and the assembly is stable – it's always the same people.

0:59:24
4. Objection: “You will necessarily select unqualified people. We live in a complex world. We are talking
abut nuclear issues, global geo-strategy with extremely complicated things.”

Do you think elected offi​cials are qualified? They have decided on exploding thousands of nuclear bombs
in the atmosphere, underground and in the seas. These are the decisions of the “qualified people”.

Sintomer's “Power to the People” gives examples of what citizens' juries decide. A unanimous decision
against GMO, after hearing arguments from proponents and opponents and due deliberation, with public
input and scrutiny, is given. After months of study, the people in citizen jury are much more informed
than an MP, who makes decisions on many different issues, can be. I think it's more convincing than the
opinion of a bunch of expert who are paid by laboratories – mainly laboratories which make GMOs. So
this “expertise” story is nonsense. The doctor MP who has just been elected, or the elected professor, on
nuclear issues, they don't know anything. About global warming they know nothing – no more than you.
They will become qualified when they start working on a case. Their work will make them qualified –
same thing for all drawees. Delegates are not qualified because they are drawn or elected: they are
qualified because they work.

The members of the citizen jury become enlightened.

This is a model for democracy: institutions that would implement a drawn parliament. People who know
that they don't know. This is much better than pretentious elections, than people who are elected and who
think that they're God.

The drawees who know that tomorrow they will join “normal” people again, will designate another
assembly that will specialize in the problem that is submitted to them. Depending on the report made by
the specialized assembly, they will decide upon such or such law. And in the end, if there is any doubt
they have a referendum.

1:06:05
5. Objection: “The Athenian model was based on slavery, phallocracy and xenophobia.”

It is anachronistic to judge Athens by today's values. At the time of the Athens, slavery was the norm in
their world, and so naturally slavery was practiced in Athens. It was as normal as eating meat is today. A
future society might judge us barbaric for the suffering inflicted on animals. This is not a defense of
slavery or phallocaracy. Elected officials deliberately mix these issues, but is in our interest to distinguish
between things.

Look at Athens: would slavery make democracy possible? If you answer “yes, democracy was only
possible because slavery existed,” then I'll say “this system bears something unacceptable so let's give
up.” But is it true? There was some truth at the time which is no longer true at all: since there were slaves
they had time to do politics. Because women would take care of the house, the food and crops, men could
do politics. That is true. But today, with our mechanical slaves, that save a thousand times more work and
more time than ancient slaves, we have enough time to do politics without slavery and exploitation of
women.
Most importantly, we should get rid of our biggest parasites, that steal thousands of billions of Euros
every year. If the fruit of our labor were not stolen we would have to work much, much less – two days a
week and retire at age 50.

1:12:16
How does a system where representatives, those who help us exert power, are drawn at random decouple
political and economic power? Why do elections allow for and do not punish abuses of power and select
the worst?

Elections are based on a myth – a story which is contradicted by all the facts: “we are able to choose good
masters and because we chose them they are going to be good.” 200 years of experience show that it is
untrue. Elections have, in all countries at all times, resulted in giving power to the rich or their servants.
Elections allow the rich ones to buy power just like you buy a car.

I am talking about the ultra-rich, the hyper class. People who are able to corrupt someone. Mass media
can be used to influence, and even to create, opinion. Elections therefore allow the rich to buy political
power. Elections therefore couple economic and political power. Elections of a constitutional assembly
allows people to buy the power to fashion the system in a way that benefits themselves.

1:19:13
Another objection you will often hear: “Will this system work with the media which belong to the
oligarchs?” 75% of French newspapers belong to two gun sellers and one concrete seller. They don't own
the newspapers for profit – they are losing money. Why do the industrialists buy media? To manipulate,
because in an election-based system mastering access to visible candidates is very important. They are the
only ones who are going to be elected.

To this objection I would reply that my claim from the beginning is that those who have written the
constitution should not write it because they have a personal interest which is against ours, against the
interests of most people. The constitutional assembly must be drawn at random. It will not have interests
since it will be drawn and not allowed to be elected to the institutions it writes.

I think that such an Assembly will settle all media issues: it will design institutions with separation of
powers, in which the executive will serve the assembly. The word government should not be accepted. A
good constitution will not allow for government, only for executive power.

We know that media are a power more important than the parliament so we're going to put the media
under democratic control with citizens' juries who check that everything is ok.

The objection is that the oligarchs will not let this project of real democracy happen. Indeed – it will not
be done by staying still. We will not ask them for permission and they not say “yes”.

In addition to media control, monetary control is needed as well.

1:23:28
Conclusion:
An industrialist, a banker, an oligarch defend elections. They allow them to buy power. It is logical. But
activists (left or right wing) who are humanists, struggling for a fair, peaceful society should not reject
sortition. Why would they venerate the sacred cow of universal suffrage and reject sortition despite 400
years of contrary facts? It's denial of reality.